[videoblogging] Re: Open Video
thanks Steve very interesting -- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins st...@... wrote: It will be tough to displace h.264... Its everywhere now, new DivX for Windows is h.264 based (though uses .mkv file wrapper format). And from what I can tell both Windows 7 and Silverlight 3 will support h.264. Increasingly, hardware that we record and watch video on supports h.264. And as you point out, its hard sell the open stuff because of lack of practical advantage to most, an even tougher problem now than when we had these discussions a few years back. Mozilla want an open standard because one of the most interesting aspects of the new generation of browsers, based on new standards for html and friends, is embedded video tags. But there needs to be a good format available that browsers support, for there to be much reason for developers to use such tags. It would have been easier for them to get somewhere with that if Flash had not come to support h.264. But it does, so its likely to remain the dominant in-browser way to deliver video to the widest range of users, different operating systems browsers. Its a mess. And the codec itself will struggle to beat h.264 for quality/filesize/cpu use balance, because so many of the things that made h.264 better than mpeg4 are patented, which defeats the whole point of the open codec. And its not like the license fee issues of h.264 trap enough people to cause a large enough stink and legal inconvenience / something that feels like the trampling of our freedoms. Youtube didnt get where it is today because of h.264 licensing issues preventing the competition from existing. If something beyond normal video, eg interactivity, genuine multi media, really captured the public imagination, there would be a chance to try to fight that battle in that space. But it hasnt really happened, and even if it did, flash h.264 platforms run by some web 2.0 startup would move quickly to provide the winning user experience on that front. Personally the only battle I think is worth the effort in the browser video space, is the issue of energy consumption. There is some sizeable waste here that can be eliminated by sane use of existing technology, whether open or not. h.264 decoding built into computer chipsets exists, but needs to be pushed harder, especially for netbooks. And I havent seen an implementation thats working in-browser, I know flash tries to use some GPU for certain parts of the decoding but much more needs to be done. Theora will struggle to get dedicated decoding stuff for their format into chipsets, but they might be able to harness GPU's really well with their browser video players, if they choose to go in that direction. I might investigate pushing that agenda. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Yep...the video creators are WAY ahead of the developers. But I think we just got to jump in. we need a community of FOSS (free and open source) developers who become as passionate about video codecs as you do, Brook. it's going to probably take 5 years for a solid foundation is built so open source codecs can be at the cutting edge. I know a big question is simply: why should I care about open codecs? aren't codecs free now? Flash and quicktime are monetarily free for the most part. Its difficult to find arguments for this now. The concern is when either/both these codecs become totally dominant...and web video is the new TV for lack of a better word. We need an open codec to either challenge the status quo...or be a solid alternative. Ars has a good summary of today's news: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-10-to-fund-ogg-development.ars Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Quick question regarding blip pro..
Hiya, Thank you so much for your response, but wasnt quite the answer I was looking for since I plan on using that or FTP anyway =) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rambos Locker rambos_loc...@... wrote: I get faster uploads and no time outs using the Blip Upper desktop application, you can DL it from here http://blip.tv/tools/ Cheers Rambo http://rambos-locker.blogspot.com -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogg...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gavin Jenkins Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2009 1:31 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Quick question regarding blip pro.. Hi Everyone! If I upload videos on my free account and they time out on conversion, will I be able to go pro and reconvert and also convert for apple quicktime? Reason I ask is I have a number of large videos, but a slooow connection, I am wanting to pre-upload before going pro so I can get the best value out of blip without the slowness of my connection 'degrading' my subscription to blip. Thanks in advance! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Quick question regarding blip pro..
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Gavin Jenkins gavinjenk...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Everyone! If I upload videos on my free account and they time out on conversion, will I be able to go pro and reconvert and also convert for apple quicktime? Support questions to blip should be sent here: Blip.tv Support supp...@blip.tv Many of us use blip so can answer how we use it...but detailed questions on thir service should be sent directly to them. Feel free to share the info back later. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] should youtube just start a new brand for Pro Content?
Does anyone think that at this point YouTube/Google should just start a new site (company) specifically for Pro Content (professionally produced entertainment) and just promote the hell out of it on Youtube.com and various other Google owned sites/pages? Let YouTube continue to be the Broadcast Yourself service and filter out their partner content? Why mix it all together? Curious of your thoughts. sull [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video
i try to look at how things might be in 5 years if x happens or y doesnt happen etc. i wouldnt discourage any efforts to make a premium open standard especially if a widely popular web browser will give you native support of that format. look back, and what did we have for video on the web? RealMedia ( http://real.com). they owned audio/video on the web. back then, flash was a joke. now barely anyone thinks about Real and all focus is on Flash. point is, anything can change. the future wont show us flash being obsolete. but it certainly can give us a competing open format that can co-exist and like i said, potentially be a critical component for open media producers to leverage if/when the current crop of formats that are not open become costly to use for profit. sull On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Steve Watkins st...@dvmachine.com wrote: It will be tough to displace h.264... Its everywhere now, new DivX for Windows is h.264 based (though uses .mkv file wrapper format). And from what I can tell both Windows 7 and Silverlight 3 will support h.264. Increasingly, hardware that we record and watch video on supports h.264. And as you point out, its hard sell the open stuff because of lack of practical advantage to most, an even tougher problem now than when we had these discussions a few years back. Mozilla want an open standard because one of the most interesting aspects of the new generation of browsers, based on new standards for html and friends, is embedded video tags. But there needs to be a good format available that browsers support, for there to be much reason for developers to use such tags. It would have been easier for them to get somewhere with that if Flash had not come to support h.264. But it does, so its likely to remain the dominant in-browser way to deliver video to the widest range of users, different operating systems browsers. Its a mess. And the codec itself will struggle to beat h.264 for quality/filesize/cpu use balance, because so many of the things that made h.264 better than mpeg4 are patented, which defeats the whole point of the open codec. And its not like the license fee issues of h.264 trap enough people to cause a large enough stink and legal inconvenience / something that feels like the trampling of our freedoms. Youtube didnt get where it is today because of h.264 licensing issues preventing the competition from existing. If something beyond normal video, eg interactivity, genuine multi media, really captured the public imagination, there would be a chance to try to fight that battle in that space. But it hasnt really happened, and even if it did, flash h.264 platforms run by some web 2.0 startup would move quickly to provide the winning user experience on that front. Personally the only battle I think is worth the effort in the browser video space, is the issue of energy consumption. There is some sizeable waste here that can be eliminated by sane use of existing technology, whether open or not. h.264 decoding built into computer chipsets exists, but needs to be pushed harder, especially for netbooks. And I havent seen an implementation thats working in-browser, I know flash tries to use some GPU for certain parts of the decoding but much more needs to be done. Theora will struggle to get dedicated decoding stuff for their format into chipsets, but they might be able to harness GPU's really well with their browser video players, if they choose to go in that direction. I might investigate pushing that agenda. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Brook Hinton bhin...@... wrote: My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Yep...the video creators are WAY ahead of the developers. But I think we just got to jump in. we need a community of FOSS (free and open source) developers who become as passionate about video codecs as you do, Brook. it's going to probably take 5 years for a solid foundation is built so open source codecs can be at the cutting edge. I know a big question is simply: why should I care about open codecs? aren't codecs free now? Flash and quicktime are monetarily free for the most part. Its difficult to find arguments for this now. The concern is when either/both these codecs become totally dominant...and web video is the new TV for lack of a
Re: [videoblogging] should youtube just start a new brand for Pro Content?
I have always hated arbitrary pro user/amateur categories. Its a continuum, not two groups, and a nonlinear continuum at that. So while I see your point, I hope for things going AWAY from further categorization of this type. -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] should youtube just start a new brand for Pro Content?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM, @sull sullele...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone think that at this point YouTube/Google should just start a new site (company) specifically for Pro Content (professionally produced entertainment) and just promote the hell out of it on Youtube.com and various other Google owned sites/pages? Let YouTube continue to be the Broadcast Yourself service and filter out their partner content? Why mix it all together? Curious of your thoughts. sull No. Why should they do that? If they decide to separate 'pros' from 'amateurs' all they need to do is re-design the home page and add a 'pro' content tab or preference cookie. -- Jacek Artymiak http://devGuide.net Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50168432081 Twitter: http://twitter.com/devguide RSS Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/devguide-net Our latest book: vi(1) Tips: Essential vi/vim Editor Skills, 1st ed. http://www.devguide.net/books/vitips1
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SHVH - Ojai, CA
Will any portion of this be streamed, oh wise ones? 2009/1/28 Michael Verdi michaelve...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:27 PM, jimmyjay24 onarol...@mac.comonaroll44%40mac.com wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, jimmyjay24 onarol...@... wrote: why does Markus call it a dojo--is he a ninja... Makus calls it a dojo because it really is a dojo. Also Markus is a (code)ninja. :-) - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com -- Jeffrey Taylor 912 Cole St, #349 San Francisco, CA 94117 USA Mobile: +14157281264 Fax: +33177722734 http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor http://organicconversations.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SHVH - Ojai, CA
good idea Jeffrey, I was just talking with someone who wanted to attend but can't get away that weekend so i set up a flashmeeting for sat, feb 7 at 23:00 GMT = noon us east coast time = 3pm us west coast time http://fm.ea-tel.eu/fm/c6b655-16125 i'll post a list of topics as they come up or feel free to make suggestions markus On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: Will any portion of this be streamed, oh wise ones? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] streaming services
Hi I recently tried out video streaming of our local city council meetings. I used justin.tv and it worked great, except I'd like a similar solution *without* ads in the video player. I was surprised to find that there was no paid option to remove the ads. Can anyone recommend a similar service (with char!), but with an option for no ads? Any recommendations much appreciated. Markus
Re: [videoblogging] should youtube just start a new brand for Pro Content?
Yes, and they're missing out on a business channel too. http://www.jimkukral.com/how-youtube-is-missing-out-on-12-billion-a-year-by-not-having-a-business-channel/ Jim Kukral 2220 Superior Viaduct, Suite 3 Cleveland, OH 44113 j...@jimkukral.com http://www.jimkukral.com http://www.connectwithjim.com (schedule an appointment with me) http://www.twitter.com/jimkukral (follow my every thought!) http://www.TheBizWebCoach.com (coaching consulting) http://www.BlendthisBook.com (i'm writing a book) On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM, @sull sullele...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone think that at this point YouTube/Google should just start a new site (company) specifically for Pro Content (professionally produced entertainment) and just promote the hell out of it on Youtube.com and various other Google owned sites/pages? Let YouTube continue to be the Broadcast Yourself service and filter out their partner content? Why mix it all together? Curious of your thoughts. sull [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
Mogulus has pro, ad free accounts, but they START at 350/month, and that's with insane limitations on bandwidth. -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Brook Hinton wrote: Mogulus has pro, ad free accounts, but they START at 350/month, and that's with insane limitations on bandwidth. thanks brook, i just spoke with a streaming service provider (Arcotream) and they quoted us a similar price of about $300/mo that's a bit high for a small town like ours it's hard to imagine that anyone is making that much off the ads from our broadcast so hoping there is a better priced solution wondering if it makes more sense to set something up myself using quicktime broadcaster or flash anyone having success with that approach? I think bloatedlesbian was playing with this some time back. are you out there madge? did that work well for you? markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
Sorry - I'm joining the conversation late... have you had a look at Ustream.tv? They're free, and the quality is better than many pay services I was looking into. I streamed 26 hours straight at an event to break a World's Record, and there were no problems. I guess if you'd prefer your stuff to not have ads, then I can see looking into other solutions, but the economy of this free service combined with the really excellent video quality has me sold. Oh, and the usual disclaimers... I don't work for them... etc. etc. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
Hi Markus Brook, I like a lot the mogulus solution, but if you want a more traditional approach you could still use: for the transmission: - apple quicktime broadcaster; - there is also a linux live system that can do the same (free and open source); - wirecast from telestream (expensive but works locally as a live mixer). I tried the trial and it seemed very good; as for the relaying you can use: - justin.tv (i never tried it, just learned about this option some days ago); - apple quicktime streaming server (comes with the OS X server); - darwin quicktime streaming server (its from apple but free and open source); In terms of putting the darwin streaming server working, you can use some good hosting to do that. one of the popular ones that are enabled to do it is Dreamhost. I tested that way and by installing in a jail freebsd server. Its interesting because you can buid a sort of tree with the streaming servers and so in the end you can serve a lot of people. I should add that if you use CamTwist http://www.allocinit.com/index.php?title=CamTwist you can also rebroadcast live some skype or ichat video talk. This part i never tried but i saw it working and also on http://www.24hours24artists.com , Michael Verdi used it. Was this stuff what you were thinking? :) Rgds, ZN On Jan 29, 2009, at 21:02 , Markus Sandy wrote: On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Brook Hinton wrote: Mogulus has pro, ad free accounts, but they START at 350/month, and that's with insane limitations on bandwidth. thanks brook, i just spoke with a streaming service provider (Arcotream) and they quoted us a similar price of about $300/mo that's a bit high for a small town like ours it's hard to imagine that anyone is making that much off the ads from our broadcast so hoping there is a better priced solution wondering if it makes more sense to set something up myself using quicktime broadcaster or flash anyone having success with that approach? I think bloatedlesbian was playing with this some time back. are you out there madge? did that work well for you? markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
Dreamhost doesn't allow live streaming using the darwin server, only hinted streaming of files, unless something changed in the last year. Justin.tv does indeed let you stream live from qtss, but it still inserts ads. Brook On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM, J. N. P. zen...@art.com.pt wrote: ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] streaming services
Hi Brook! Its a trick you do. you have to create a sort of metafile that you build on broadcaster and then when you put that file there (DH) and you can broadcast. you just have to try and get the free udp ports on that specific server. i used it just for testing and it works all right. with my own server i can use the automatic setup, but on dreamhost you have to do it with that metafile. i can search for more details, i remember talking with Madge about it also. I am sure i have some notes i can dig if you or anyone needs them. Rgds, ZN On Jan 30, 2009, at 0:34 , Brook Hinton wrote: Dreamhost doesn't allow live streaming using the darwin server, only hinted streaming of files, unless something changed in the last year. Justin.tv does indeed let you stream live from qtss, but it still inserts ads. Brook On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM, J. N. P. zen...@art.com.pt wrote: ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Quick question regarding blip pro..
Yes. You can request reconversion with a Pro account, but actually if have a free account you can email them and they'll do it anyway. Or at least, they always have for me. Just tell them which videos you want to reconvert. And yes, Blip Pro gives you the option to convert your file to a .m4v iPod compatible h264 file, which will play in quicktime. This will also then play instead of the lower quality flash video in their Show Player. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 28-Jan-09, at 7:31 PM, Gavin Jenkins wrote: Hi Everyone! If I upload videos on my free account and they time out on conversion, will I be able to go pro and reconvert and also convert for apple quicktime? Reason I ask is I have a number of large videos, but a slooow connection, I am wanting to pre-upload before going pro so I can get the best value out of blip without the slowness of my connection 'degrading' my subscription to blip. Thanks in advance! Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
